the "UHub Bike Gang" is always attacking grammar errors when threatened! Maybe, just maybe this poor soul typed his/her comment on a cellphone. Guess that Single-gear crank in you heads don't allow you to think rationally when someone makes a valid attack/point.

Come down to the South Station area and count the box blocking, the "three go free on red", etc. I dare you to cross any street around here for an hour and not get whiffed by a vehicle just flat out blowing through a fully red light at speed.

Now, what was that about "but bike riders whahhhhhhh bike riders wahhhhh"? Its all massholes - just some massholes have multi-ton vehicles doing 30mph.

(I work in Cambridge and find most folks that park in bike lanes have to do so to make deliveries and the like. I do not consider them asshats. I also commute to South Station every day and have to say the intersection in front (which I cross almost daily) of SS is pretty orderly and I have yet to be run down by a auto going through a red light. Can't say the same for a bike that almost took me down last year, though.)

Only if you consider cars running red lights to be so normal that you don't see them.

I agree - can't go a day in that area with out cars running lights - some at speed, others thinking that they didn't get their turn yet because they had to wait for pedestrians to cross with the light and it is okay to cork the intersection.

Called rush hour, darling. People have posted photos here before with red lights and cars in motion. You have to get out of your car to actually see it - on repeat!

There are many bike-lane-blockers that are not making active deliveries. They're waiting to pick up friends, or going to the post office, or grabbing a coffee, or doing any host of tasks where they could park legally instead. If it's a task you can do from a legal parking spot and you're just too lazy/cheap/etc to find one? Asshat. I'd be willing to consider an exception for commercial deliveries, but really, that's why we have loading zones, off-peak hours, etc. It shouldn't be up to each individual driver to decide whether or not it's ok to park illegally. If you violate the law and create a safety hazard, that's erring much more on the side of asshat than not.

If you want to see the red-light running, box-blocking, pedestrian-unfriendly drivers near South Station, hang out over at Congress and High at about 5pm. You'll see plenty of cars parking and driving in the bike lane on Congress too. Another hot-spot? Watch the intersection of O'Brien Highway and Mem Drive/Edwin Land Blvd. People turn left well after the arrow is red, they turn left from lanes other than the leftmost lane, they go straight from right-turn-only lanes, they block the box at Museum Way. The whole infrastructure in front of MoS is a giant fail, so it's hard to blame them, but to say that it's hard to find rampant violations by drivers just means you're looking in the wrong places.

Every group of road users has its share of good and bad behavior. Denying these complexities is naive, and the sooner we can get away from this weird bike-car quid pro quo and think objectively about how to improve the safety and efficiency of our roads, the better.

Bike messengers who run the light at Summer and High cutting across 3 lanes of travel. Soon they'll be back smoking weed and crushing PBR's at Winthrop Square! (Funny look at Google Maps street view, it even has the cliche biker with a PBR hat on).

Absolutely. Curb extensions on Somerville Ave keep plow drivers away from the curb, leaving snow in the parking lanes and parking in the bike lanes. The curb extension in Alston contributed to the cyclist death, with no room between it and the side of a MBTA bus.

Curb extensions show no safety positives and many negatives besides being a waste of money. MassDOT, stop using them please!

Tell that to the other two people who had bikes locked up around the Apple Store that no one but you seemed to mind. Also, I wish I had taken a picture of the asshole who felt it was OK to park his BMW across the 4 small spaces that are clearly marked for motor bikes in front of the Apple Store.

I want to believe that there are road laws but experience leads me to believe that there are only suggestions and recommendations these days. The norm seems to be that yellow truly means speed up. At downtown lights around South Station the only time crossing is safe is when done in a herd.

Walk signal is on? Doesn't mean a thing. I see vehicles rushing through red lights if there is no one literally in the middle of the road. The few seconds available to pedestrians are now lessoned due to the assumption that red means stop only if a cop is in the intersection. Even then I've seen drivers break traffic laws without even a wagging finger from a cop.

To me the sign on the bike is just an indication that there are no more road laws. Driving for many (not all yet) simply follows a policy of odds. What are the odds that the consequences of driving according to personal rules will outweigh the inconvenience of limiting driving to laws designed to protect everyone? Driving in Boston's area seems to be based on either a MAD policy or some variant of Darwinian survival based on aggression and intimidation.

If only there was a way to make money out of insane driving. That would reduce property taxes.

When I got my license, my test was 15 min and we never left the maze of parking lots around the Leominster DMV. Still, the Trooper had us go through quite a bit of maneuvering, parking, general knowledge, ect. My father told me when he went they took him on hills, the highway, ect. For my younger sis, they barely did anything and the test was now administered by a civilian (contractors?). Just having the the safety school admin with her meant pretty much passing without any actual road testing.

I’m with you. We really should be forced to take road tests every 10 years (every 5 for your first 10, and after age 80). Can police in this state even require you to be revaluated / retested?

Thanks for nothing, Crystal Transport bus that swerved into my lane at 45 mph on Cambridge Street in Allston last night. You couldn't wait 5 seconds until you passed me to pass that tractor-trailer on the right?

I do a lot of biking around here, and it's a rare occasion that another driver really scares me. This was such an occasion.

Pay excises taxes , then get insurance. You want to be protected by the law, follow the law. No going down one ways the wrong way, hoping on and off sidewalks as you please. Observe crosswalks for pedestrians , weaving around them is not yielding.

A lot of bike riders already pay excise tax, not to mention my bike put almost no wear and tear on the road at all. I own a car, but its not practical for getting around within the city so I generally take my bike. Also I'm not going to do very much damage to others with my bike so why do I need insurance? If I were in an accident any property damage caused by me would be minimal as opposed to the damage caused by a 2000 pound car. And how many bike / pedestrian accidents do you hear about? If there is any bodily harm cause by a bike 90% of the time its to the operator and I already have health insurance, so I'm not sure what you're argument is

Dude , your excise tax on your car has nothing to do with your bike. It is a form of a use tax, one size does not fit all.Have two cars , pay two excise taxes.

Its nice that you have health insurance, but if you strike a person with your bike, how would you like to pay that medical bill out of your pocket. Also , how many ride by scrape jobs happen that go unreported? Do that in a motorcar and its leaving the scene ect ect. The bikes want the use but no responsibilities beyond getting to where they want to get ot, unimpeded by the rights of everyone else. So dont sheet a sheeter with this free the bike crap taking up a travel lane in an already congested city. The bikers are a cash cow for the authorities, they just dont know how to get it done yet. keep making noise , get your righteous selves noticed, and be careful what you get.

I am not going to argue with you but if a bike hits me, first call is to police for assault , second to ambulance , third to ambulance chaser. That is as a pedestrian. As a former truck driver , I have had the rear of my trailer ran into twice, and the car fled. One person i had arrested for leaving the scene of an accident , the trailer got its rust scratched. The second time, the person filed a fraudulent insurance claim, even though she fled the scene without identifying herself. I reported it to an officer . A bike is no different vs a person, a person will always win.

Swirls , and Z , I have been around the block a few more times than you I bet . I am sure you are decent people, and Swirls, I am sure you arent a mad commanche on the bike and observe the most important law there is , the one of common sense.I think this thread is all about that,thats all anybody really wants. Can you dig it?

excise tax is $25 per $1000 in value on my car, so I'd owe like $2.50 on the beater bike that I ride around the city on.

How many bike / pedestrian accidents are there really? Especially ones that are the fault of the cyclist and not jaywalkers? How many cars are involved with scraping cars and driving off?

And the fact that you think "The bikers are a cash cow for the authorities" only highlights the bigger problem with traffic enforcement being a revenue source and having nothing to do with making the roadways safer.

I only have one car, and on that car I barely pay shit for excise tax.

Should I put a quarter in a box at city hall for each bike in the garage? I'll go drop off $2.50. There.

I'm so sorry that you can't be bothered to pay attention to the laws of the commonwealth - perhaps that Shroud of Entitlement is blocking your vision/reading, no? Buck up, grow up, or get off the road.

I just saw this , Swirls , off the road, be nice. I probably have more miles in reverse than you have. Faneuil Hall was a meat market once , did you know that? I got more licenses than i can afford I know more rules and regulations that I have survived , aw the humanity of it. Be nice, stay safe , you dont always win even when you win!

Some people just really want to get to the next red light as soon as possible. This little device really works. When the flag is in the horizontal position passing vehicles go around it. Like a matador and a bull!

The sign is correct; but really incomplete. Cars, unlike bicycles, do not have use of the full lane. This is because bicycles by law always may pass a car on the right(even when there is no bike lane); and this is true even when the car or truck is making a right hand turn.
Also bicyclists may legally ride on the sidewalk, if they want to.

I don't think MA laws are clear on this topic, but I haven't reviewed them in a while. It is pretty clear that bikes do not have to yield to turning vehicles and may pass them on the right so long as there is the requisite 3' of clearance available. There may be some exceptions to this right to pass if traffic is completely stopped, e.g. at an intersection or crosswalk. However, this exception is not bike-specific and only comments on how one may pass a stopped vehicle--you'd have to dig it up in the MGLs.

The unclear part is what the right-turning vehicle is supposed to do. I believe the law says the vehicle must turn from the "rightmost part of the roadway." Well, is some places the rightmost part of the roadway is the bike lane. I think the idea is that cars should merge into the bike lane to make a right turn. This is demonstrated by the dotted lines on some bike lanes near intersections indicating that cars may enter/cross.

Regardless of whether the car merges into the bike lane or not, the car is required to yield the right of way as it merges/turns. Checking your mirrors when making a right turn feels totally unnatural, but that's what you're supposed to do. Bikes should of course be prepared to yield to vehicles in front of them that signal a right turn for the sake of safety and practicality.

I've been pleasantly surprised at how many right-turners yield to me when I'm on my bike, even if I'm a car-length or two behind them.

is inaccurate. Per Federal standards, "Bikes May Use Full Lane" signs are intended only for those locations where the roadway is too narrow for a car and a cyclist to ride side by side in the same lane.

If there is a shoulder of sufficent width, if the lane is wide enough for "shared lane" markings, or if there is a bike lane, cyclists do not have the legal right to ride down the center of the car lane.

Unfortunately, state law doesn't contain any legal requirement mandating that cyclists use a bike lane when it is provided.

I assume you're citing to the Uniform Vehicle Code. Note that sharrows do NOT reliably indicate that at lane is wide enough for a car and bicycle to travel side-by-side because there is currently no uniform rule as to their use. In fact, most lanes are 10-12' wide, which is NOT sufficient for a 80" wide car and and a bicycle with 800mm handlebars with ride side by side with the requisite 3' separation.

Additionally, the UVC is not law, but is instead a set of recommendations. Massachusetts has not adopted the language in the UVC that requires bicycles to ride as far to the right as possible. Massachusetts does have a requirement to "facilitate passing," but this only requires that a vehicle being passed give way to the right upon visible signal and to allow the passing vehicle to merge back into the lane. IMHO, this "give way to the right" is a historical artifact from the days of unstriped and poorly maintained roads where drivers would drive down the center crown of the road. But I'll grant you that it probably also implies that a cyclist on that rare >13' lane may be required to hug the right side of the road if the car signals.

Cyclists "shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section" ... Like stopping at red lights, perhaps?

"A person operating a bicycle on the sidewalk shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian." ... Never heard a cyclist do that.

"During the period from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise, the operator shall display to the front of his bicycle a lamp emitting a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet" ... Plenty of bikes don't have lights.

I support people cycling, and especially support projects to put in much safer bike lanes and infrastructure…

But this screams DB “ I’ll use the middle of the 35mph lane going 10mph, all the time because screw you ”.

Yes, technically it’s legal. But it’s a total Masshole move, unless you need to use it, to hold up traffic behind you. And while I don’t want to blame someone not technically doing anything wrong, IRL is it really safer after you’ve ticked off a quarter mile of cars? Road rage is a problem, and not a good one when on a bike.